Search

Recent efforts in understanding the course and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infections have highlighted both potentially beneficial and detrimental effects of cross-reactive antibodies derived from memory immunity. Specifically, due to a significant degree of sequence similarity between SARS-CoV-2 and other members of the coronavirus family, memory B-cells that emerged from previous infections with endemic human coronaviruses (HCoVs) could be reactivated upon encountering the newly emerged SARS-CoV-2, thus prompting the production of cross-reactive antibodies. Determining the affinity and concentration of these potentially cross-reactive antibodies to the new SARS-CoV-2 antigens is therefore particularly important when assessing both existing immunity against common HCoVs and adverse effects like antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) in COVID-19. However, these two fundamental parameters cannot easily be disentangled by surface-based assays like enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), which are routinely used to assess cross-reactivity. Here, we have used microfluidic antibody affinity profiling (MAAP) to quantitatively evaluate the humoral immune response in COVID-19 convalescent patients by determining both antibody affinity and concentration against spike antigens of SARS-CoV-2 directly in nine convalescent COVID-19 patient and three pre-pandemic sera that were seropositive for common HCoVs. All 12 sera contained low concentrations of high-affinity antibodies against spike antigens of HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-HKU1, indicative of past exposure to these pathogens, while the affinity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was lower. These results suggest that cross-reactivity as a consequence of memory reactivation upon an acute SARS-CoV-2 infection may not be a significant factor in generating immunity against SARS-CoV-2.

The humoral immune response plays a key role in suppressing the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2. The molecular determinants underlying the neutralization of the virus remain, however, incompletely understood. Here, we show that the ability of antibodies to disrupt the binding of the viral spike protein to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor on the cell, the key molecular event initiating SARS-CoV-2 entry into host cells, is controlled by the affinity of these antibodies to the viral antigen. By using microfluidic antibody-affinity profiling, we were able to quantify the serum-antibody mediated inhibition of ACE2-spike binding in two SARS-CoV-2 seropositive individuals. Measurements to determine the affinity, concentration, and neutralization potential of antibodies were performed directly in human serum. Using this approach, we demonstrate that the level of inhibition in both samples can be quantitatively described using the dissociation constants ( K D ) of the binary interactions between the ACE2 receptor and the spike protein as well as the spike protein and the neutralizing antibody. These experiments represent a new type of in-solution receptor binding competition assay, which has further potential applications, ranging from decisions on donor selection for convalescent plasma therapy, to identification of lead candidates in therapeutic antibody development, and vaccine development.

We assessed the performance of a rapid antigen test (RAT) in everyday clinical practice. Between 1 November 2020 until 1 April 2021 all in-patients at the Helios University Hospital Wuppertal, Germany, as well as the accompanying relatives at the Children’s Hospital received a SARS-CoV-2 RAT and a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR prior to admission. Out of 3686 patients, 22 (0.6%) subjects were tested positive by RT-PCR and RAT, and 3591 (97.4%) were negative by both methods, showing discordant results: RT-PCR+/RAT− in 58 (1.6%) and RT-PCR−/RAT+ in 15 patients (0.4%). Overall sensitivity and specificity of RAT was 27.5% (95%CI 18.1–38.6%) and 99.6% (95%CI 99.3–99.8%), respectively. The sensitivity was slightly higher in adults (30.4%, 95%CI 18.8–90.9%) than in pediatric subjects (20.8%, 95%CI 7.1–42.2%). False negative RAT had a statistically higher Ct-value (p < 0.001) compared to true positive values, and overall sensitivity increased to 80% [59.3–93.2%] with Ct value < 30. While the sensitivity of the RAT was poor compared with the RT-PCR, the specificity was excellent. However, the sensitivity increased with lower Ct value, and with the right anamnesis the RAT can be a quick and easy approach to distinguish people who are infectious with SARS-CoV-2 from noninfectious people, enabling appropriate triage in clinical practice while waiting for the RT-PCR result.